as may appeare to all English men that understand their own tongue as in the like phrase make or build houses laying the foundations on the tock and raising the walls and roof of lasting and durable matter do not these participles expresse the manner of doing or may a man gather from hence that the house must be built before the foundation must be laid Again the word nations is a Noune of multitude and the very commission seemeth to point at the nation of the Jewes for the pattern that they should call other nations into covenant with God even after the same manner as the Jews have been by vertue of the same promise and thus it is apparent the Apostles all understood it Paul both to the Romans Rom 4 11. and Gal. 3.17 doth argue that the promise might stand the same to us as was to Abraham though circumcision be taken away for as much as the promise was before circumcision even to Abraham and there might remain the circumcision of the heart though the outward circumcision were taken away and Baptisme put in the place of it and from this promise Acts 2.39 S. Peter argueth to Baptisme the promise belongeth to you therefore be baptized If then Baptisme may be tendered to nations nations may receive baptisme that is it may be nay it must be received by a nationall covenant the nation of the Jews were only in covenant with God before Christ but all nations after Christ hath broken down the partition wall Now principally a nationall covenant doth consist in this that the most principall of the nation do covenant for the rest the more considerable part do receive for the rest and require performance of others their inferiours God laid circumcision upon the Jews under a penalty which is a nationall way of receiving God commandeth all to be circumcised by a Law under a penalty that person that was not circumcised must be cut off Gen. 17.14 that the whole nation might be circumcised If any shall object that the Jews were all to be circumcized under a penalty but the penalty was appointed of God I answer that was an especiall priviledge of the Jewes that they had their civill Lawes from God but what lieth upon a nation as a duty that it may require of all and cut off them that refuse and this is implied in the commission when nations shall covenant to be Disciples which may be done by a part for the whole then are such as are in commission from Christ commanded to baptize and teach the whole nation such as are in authority may covenant in a nationall way for the inferiour sort and justly require all externall performances from them such as Baptisme and submission to be taught are as for faith and internall performance no creature can judge of that or require it of another in a judiciall way If any object that the Apostles did not execute their commission but upon such parties as did believe and would be baptized I answer a commission cannot be executed in full extent untill opportunity be gotten he that hath a commission to hang up all the thieves in the kingdom must execute it as he may he must hang them as he can catch them as soon as they could procure a nationall willingnesse they were ready to baptize them as by the many thousands baptized by them the same day of their conversion may appear taking them in by families which act by a nationall way the master of the family covenanting for his servants and children So Josh 24.15 I and my house will serve the Lord he may not believe for his servant but he may covenant for externall worship for his son under a penalty and for his servant according to his condition under penalty or dismission of service that the whole family or nation might come in And that the Gentiles should in such a manner flow into the Church the Prophets do fully testifie Isai 2.2 All nations shall flow c. See further what light the word Disciple doth give to this sense of the commission Disciple is a relative and is referred to master to him that giveth precepts which have sanctions of reward and punishment annexed and this is the covenant that is between the master and the scholler that he will teach and punish the negligence of the scholler the scholler must be under the covenant of submission or otherwise he can be no scholler Now note that two ways this covenant of a scholler may be put upon any person First it may be put on with the consent of the scholler or secondly without in case of a slave his Lord may impose what covenants he pleaseth without his consent if he will live and enjoy his being the father may and that justly by his interest that he hath over his son by nature put him to school and make a scholler of him even before he be willing to consent he may justly carry him and correct him if he refuse to be put under the power of a Schoolmaster giving his Schoolmaster power to correct him Now to send him to school to Christ and teach him the precepts of Christ and this imposed on the parent of Christ by his Apostles Ephes 6.4 And ye fathers provoke not your children to wrath but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. And what a parent can do over his child in matter of duty that may the parents of the countrey the Magistrates require of the nations God requireth it of them they may put all the nation to school to Christ Now what if some of them be too young to learn yet if they be under the discipline of the Master they are schollers as may appear in many little children that are set to school to keep them safe and from wantonnesse before they be of capacity to learn many have a hornbook given more for a play-game then a book yet are they schollers because under the discipline and correction of the Master is it not therefore great reason that a Christian should dedicate his childe to Christ to be partaker of the blessing and discipline of Christ surely godlinesse hath the promise of this life and that which is to come What is the Infant capable of no good from Christ neither in soul nor body hath Christ nothing to do with him Christ did blesse sucking Infants and as he blesseth cannot he likewise punish at pleasure Why then if he hath power over all nations and de jure they are all under his discipline may not Christian parents put their children under the tuition of Christ seeing though they cannot learn yet he can blesse and hath right and will punish which we by baptizing our Infants do but acknowledge nay certainly he is an Infidell that doth not think that Christ can teach the Infant by his Spirit though we cannot by means that we can use or that he doth not qualifie the souls of the elect Infants with gifts of
rejoyced beleeving in God with all his house I confesse Passor and others render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so yet it is an adverbe of place and can reasonably signifie no more but the place where he rejoyced besides if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie with all in the house it must signifie more then were baptized because none were baptized but his and if under the name of his then he had an interest in presenting them Now man can have no more interest in any then in his children they are his in a more especiall manner so that if he had any children it is apparent they were baptized or else they were none of his all his were baptized And whereas Mr. Tombes saith all the houshold beleeved or all that were baptized beleeved it is plaine that the Master of the house onely is said to beleeve for the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is referred to the nominative case the adverbe that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it should be translated with all his house is to be referred to the verbe which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rejoyced they rejoyced to see their master or father so merry if beleeving had been referred to all the house it must have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 domo credente with his house beleeving whereas it is now to be rendred hee beleeving rejoyced with all his houshold none is said to beleeye but himselfe as in Lydias case is likewise plaine from whence it will appeare that a beleeving master may present his servant and children to baptisme though it doth not follow that a beleeving master may or will present those of his servants or children that are adult or of yeares without their consent yet he may be his authority require them to it as an externall duty he cannot compell them to any duty or restraine them from any vice without their consent yet he may correct them and incline their will to any outward duty by his authority and having wrought upon them â—o consent and submit the commissioner may baptize them that come so presenâ—ed the master of a family is a King a Prophet and a Priest if by any of these offices he can prevaile with his houshold he may bring them to the performance of their duties Now baptizing as a duty and precept lyeth on the Minister antecedenter to the faith of the baptized and is at least annexed to doctrine and not to faith they must teach and baptize all Nations now it is plaine they must teach as well them that beleeve not as them that beleeve againe baptizing is modus decandi a manner of teaching as I have said and shall further be made appeare upon occasion Now whereas Mr. Tombes further saith that then it will follow that the whole houshold must necessarily beleeve if the Master doth and proveth that some time it falleth out otherwise I say that though it bee the master or husbands duty to move his family yet he cannot alwaies prevaile and speciall direction concerning the wife is given to suffer her in regard of the bond of Matrimony and that under some limited and restrained tearms in hope of her conversion yet nothing is said concerning servants but that he may either force them or be rid of them if they continue Infidels in that sense that is refuse to list themselves among Disciples the publike worship of some God being the bound of all humane society 101. Ps 6. He that walketh in a perfect way he shall serve me he that keepeth any servant that will not be baptized is not a good Christian it is true all men of discretion ought to consent to every duty but baptisme is a duty without consent as all other precepts are it is pactum impositum as before and so I come to follow his arguments lapping up two or three of them because he maketh sleight of the arguments we shall take occasion to shew the weaknesse of some of his answers and where the arguments be weak the weaknesse is his to bring them in The first argument of this sort is taken from the generall promises to the godly and their seed this hath already been handled how they conclude for baptisme he citeth Exod. 20.6 Psal 112.2 he saith they are for the most part concerning temporall things then spirituall also as confessed generall and indefinite if generall and indefinite it must be so by reason of the necessity of the matter otherwise indefinite would be particular election doth not stop children they are elect when children or never these promises are with condition of faith and repentance therefore not belonging to this place saith Mr. Tombes Well then he was too blame to bring it 2. Isai 49.22 it is foretold that Gentiles should bring their children in their armes therefore the Prophets foresaw the baptisme of Infants It is the happinesse of the best arguments to have the weakest answers they might be brought to other ends which he proveth from Mat. 19.15 but were those in that place brought to the Church according to the prophesie then Christ must needs be understood as sitting in the Church and suffer them to come to me must be admit them into the Church as I have said it is true that men which come to the Church come for other ends then to be baptized but if baptisme be the door of the Church as it is the sacramentall door of the visible Church nemine contradiâ—ente besides Independents then whatsoever be their businesse they did come in by the door of baptisme And whereas Mr. Tombes saith that was an analogie and was performed by the perswasions in which the Gentiles did perswade their children to imbrace Christ he formerly affirmeth little ones in armes are not to be baptized because not capable of instructions and must bringing of little ones in armes be interpreted by instructions it is true that Junius doth say cum vexillâ— Evangelii quod est potentia Dei ad salutem haec omnia allegâ—ricâ— dicuntur de amplitudine regni Christi spiritualis but he doth not say that bringing of children in armes should be understood of grown children capable of instruction when it may be literally understood Lastly I shall only mention that argument taken out of Ephes 5.26 where it is said Christ cleansed his Church with washing of water through the Word from whence it is argued that the Church is washed with water of baptisme or not partaker of the washing by the blood of Christ To which Mr. Tombes maketh this answer that if this argument be of force the thief repenting on the crosse Infants catechumeni martyrs and others dying without baptisme are excluded out of the Church and the benefit of Christ he should have said if none of these were capable of baptisme then were they excluded from the benefit of Christs death where God doth prevent any by death the party so taken away by God is not deprived of the benefit of Christs death God
a prophane meeting to feast together Ninthly men forget baptisme so that it hath the force of a carnall right and not a spirituall institution Tenthly it taketh away or at least diminisheth the zeal and industry of knowing the Gospell But be all these faults and are all of these flowing from Infants baptisme First I shall shew that many of these have no affinity at all with Infants baptisme First private baptisme hath nothing to do with Infants baptisme for that Infants may be baptized publikely nay Lawes may be made requiring their publike baptisme though Infants nay the Directory is at this time so penned and in all times publike baptisme was principally aimed at and desired and for the most part so performed what he meaneth by private baptisme I do not know baptisme in an house among so many as make a congregation I cannot discerne how that can well be accounted any such fault I am sure he hath not proved it 2. He telleth us that baptizing of Infants hath brought in the baptizing by women as though Ministers may not baptize children as well as women 3. The baptizing of Infants hath brought in the baptizing of children not brought to light for my part I can say nothing but wonder at such an inference 4. As for baptizing of children of uncertaine progenie I know nothing of it but that if any man that is a Christian himselfe will undertake to bring him up a Disciple of Christs such a childe may be baptized 5. They are baptized in the name of the Lord that know not the Lord what inconvenience from that It is true St. Paul saith No man can call upon him of whom he hath not heard It would indeed put on the forme of some probablity if it were referred unto the person that did call on the name of the Lord that it were something absurd but doth it follow because no man can call on him of whom he hath not heard therefore he cannot call on the name of God in the behalfe of any but such as have heard of God none can pray but those that have faith but may not a faithfull man pray for an Infidell may not a Christian parent pray for his childe because the childe doth not know the Lord this were very strange as for the childs consent I say so farre as concernes the Covenant between God and man which is sealed in Baptisme consent is not required on our part to the obligation we are bound to obedience and are under the sanction of condemnation if we consent not and this is the very reason why circumcision which had as great a respect to the circumcision of the heart as baptisme was as vaine and nothing without faith as baptisme was yet stamped on the infants of the Jewes wherein the Scripture is not silent therefore this argument is not of any force that baptisme is not to be administred to Infants because they doe not consent unlesse the consent of the party to be baptized were required to the obligation if the childe were free from those duties unto which he is tyed by his baptisme untill he had consented thereunto it were a great wrong to baptize him and thereby lay a yoke upon him without his consent from which he were otherwise free but whether he consent or not the obligation of obedience and faith lyeth on him and the sanction of wrath and condemnation attendeth on the Infidell and disobedient whether they consent or not whether they are baptized or not so that consent both to obedience and faith and baptisme whether baptisme be represented to them as already done or to be done is required of him that is adultus or of yeares as a duty not as liberty 〈◊〉 â—â—fusing to consent is a sinne and punishable both by God and man though these consist much in internalls of which only God can judge and punish faith and obedience of the heart but as for the externalls of Gods worship such as are the externall rite of baptisme that is to be performed in the sight of men and men may require him that is of yeares to consent to his baptisme laying the neglect on him as a sinne and punishing him for it as for adultery fornication or any other publike offence leaving the matter of faith which is private to the judgement of God so likewise may the Nations receive baptisme for the whole as all other externalls requiring parents to bring their children as before I have thought good to speake something to this point because it seemeth to carry some shew of reason with it that no man should be tyed to a Covenant unto which hee never gave any consent which in free covenants is true though in publike covenants we are tyed by the covenants of our Ancestors and are bound by those lawes wee are borne under made by the consent of our parents but in the case between God and us he made us and giveth lawes to us under which we must live or dye I take Lawes here in a generall sense to signifie direction for faith and repentance as well as any other rules of life not by vertue of our owne consent but Gods absolute right and authority 6. Mr. Tombs telleth us that baptizing of Infants hath brought the admission of ignorant and prophane persons unto the communion of the Church and to the Lords Supper for who can deny rightly the rite of the Church to the baptized so he To this I answer that the engagement of the parent to instruct his childe which is but his duty will certainly be a great meanes to set men upon the performance of their duty therein when men shall solemnly in the presence of God before a congregation be charged with the bringing up of their children in the feare of God that they must looke to their owne conversation that it be exemplary to their children if this be not performed by the parents yet the charging it upon them out of Gods word cannot but be a meanes rather to keep out ignorance and prophanenesse then to bring them in can any means be used by man more available then to instruct children in their tender years in the knowledge of God Certainly God hath informed us that this is the most lasting knowledge that wee learned in tender yeares and our experience doth abundantly confirme this Now what greater care can bee had by the Church then in such a solemne and sacramentall manner for a man to bee charged with the education of his childe as a Scholler of Christ as soon as he is able to learne any thing if this be a way to introduce prophanenesse and ignorance I know not what can keep it out but he implyeth as a great sinne that ignorant persons should be admitted into communion of the Church and the Lords Supper for this admittance into the communion of the Church if any thing may be argued from thence touching the unlawfulnesse of Infants baptisme a just and due tract ought to
instance after the resurrection is Acts 2.41 they that gladly received the Word of God were baptized and why should they not did ever any deny that such as received the Word of God should be baptized and these are they saith Mr. Tombes to whom he said vers 39. the promise belongeth to you and to your children added three thousand souls yet never a child baptized men may as well say never a man or never a woman from the word souls an Infant may be called a soul as well as men or women but saith Mr. Tombes the Text saith those that received the Word were baptized doth it say their children were not but Mr. Tombes confesseth they were the same persons that gladly received the Word of God unto whom Peter had said the promise did belong to them and their children that was the Word they gladly received And Saint Peter inferreth from this that the promise did belong to them that they should therefore be baptized because the promise did belong to them Now if this argument from the promise was good concerning them why is it not as good for their children and if they received the word of the promise gladly for themselves it is likely if it had been denied them in respect of their children they would some of them have had the boldnesse to have asked it for their children and said Peter you told us of the promise that it belonged to our children to as well as us and you told us that that was a good reason why wee should be baptized and accordingly we are baptised why should not that be a ground for our children to be baptized also we know no reason why that should be a reason for us to be baptized and not for them You tell us the promise doth belong to them as well as to us as for the limitation of as many as the Lord shall call that is to be referred to them that are afarre off not to us afarre off is opposed to them that are neare Ephesians 2 13. You that were farre off are made nigh by the bloud of Christ farre off signifieth them that are not yet called nigh them that are called to looke on the words in their originall sense we do not use to call them that are nigh already but them that are afarre off that they may come nigh and this appeareth plainly to be the sense by that here are severall subjects of the promise you are the subject of the promise and your children and they that are farre off You are not your children your children are not you you nor your children are not afarre off they that are afarre off must be called that they may be nigh that so the promise may belong to you all that so ye may all be baptized What Mr. Goodwins fancie is Mr. T. doth not tell us nor have I seen or heard but cannot be denied that the word soules doe comprehend men women and children for though there be some difference in their bodies yet they agree all in this that they be soules taken for persons though for my part I will not argue from hence that children were baptized yet I say from hence is clearly evinced that children have a right and interest to baptisme because to the promise and that as clearly as any thing can be for that which is a cause producing an effect in one subject will produce the same effect in another posita causa ponitur effectus rationale est risible is as true in children as in men he to whom the promise doth belong may be baptized is as true in children as in men if the promise doth belong to them both as the text plainly saith it doth and the pointing of the Greeke text doth plainly declare this to be the meaning of the words for there is no point between you and your children but between children and them that are afarre off to shew the promise belonged to them and their children in their present condition to them that are afarre off after their call where note that the promise is to bee understood in the externall or internall consideration according to the externall Sacraments have their administration amongst men which tearmes ye have applyed to Jews and circumcision Rom. 2.29 He is a Jew which is one inwardly and circumcision is that of the heart in Spirit and not the Letter whose praise is not of men but of God the Letter saith God will be the God of Abraham and his seed but the spirit saith that he will be so to the elect and faithfull The Letter saith every male shall be circumcised the Spirit saith that circumcision is no circumcision which is outward but that which is of the heart the Letter looketh on the family of Abraham either by generation or by communion the Spirit on a remnant only according to the election of graceâ— the Letter requireth circumcision or cutteth off some say Goodwins antiq Ainsworth in locum the parent some say the child for the neglect thus externall performance hath its praise or dispraise of men but that of the Spirit hath its praise not of men but of God To this latter only faith and repentance is required or rather both circumcision of the heart and baptisme of the heart are nothing else but faith and repentance which God can judge and praise not man and thus the promise according to the Letter did belong to those Jews to whom Peter spake even before their effectuall call and this Peter urgeth to them as a motive to move them to be baptized as if he should have said upon this ground ye were circumcised and now upon the same ground ye may be baptized it is true we are not only Ministers of the Letter but of the Spirit and therefore we preach faith and repentance as requisite to your baptisme of the Spirit but you must give account of that to God and not to us we can take no account of it we are not Lords and Judges of your faith we preach all the duties that belong to the inward man but administer sacraments and guide our charity towards our brethren by outward rules it must satisfie us if you will come and claim your interest to the promise both for your selves and your children we must baptize you and your children we will teach what account ye must make to God of your faith and repentance how you must bring up your children in the feare of God but we can take account of none of these things The next place of Scripture which he taketh in to this confutation is Acts 8.12 by which he proveth that the Apostles did not take in whole families at once because the whole City of Samaria we prove a personall account of all to be baptized was not required because they were taken in by whole families in the Apostles time and Mr. Tombes confuseth this by saying they were taken in by whole cities I like such confutations Next out of
is not tied to sacraments so as that he cannot fave without them though contempt of sacraments be sinfull and damnable Mr. Tombes his second argument is That which agreeth not with the Lords institution of baptisme is deservedly doubtfull but the right of Infants baptisme agreeth not with the Lords institution of baptisme Ergo. I deny the minor Mr. Tombes proveth because Infants cannot be Disciples of Christ I say they may Mr. Tombes confesseth Infants may be sanctified but it cannot be made known to us that is not Mr. Tombes his argument that it must be known to us that they are sanctified neither from the institution doth it appeare that they must be Disciples before they are baptized much lesse that it must appear The commission to the Apostles and from them to all the Ministers of the Word to the end of the world is to make Disciples of all nations baptizing and teaching them what Christ shall command The parties to be baptized are all nations without any restriction at all their commission is to baptize all nations and this in reference to that nationall covenant that then was among the Jews only the publike worship was limited to the Temple then now to no place make Disciples is no limitation of persons Their commission was to make all nations Disciples which they were to execute pro viribus to the uttermost of their power the conjunction of baptisme and teaching with making Disciples was not with respect to any personall restriction but it is conjunctio mediorum ad finem make all nations Disciples the meaning is by baptisme and teaching Now the setting down of these words making Disciples first is because that was the end of their commission first in intention and must first be proposed as in all operations is necessary as if a man will have an house built a city conquered an enemy taken the first thing that he proposeth is the thing that he will have done and after directeth or consulteth about the means though they must use the means before they get the end I have already spoken to this and shall more fully in my arguments that I intend for childrens baptisine For that which Master Tombes saith then the children of Infidels might be baptized I have already spoken of that it is not incapacity of the childe that disableth him from baptisme it is the fault of the parent that will not bring his childe nor will undertake to bring up his childe in Christian doctrine nor is he that is an Infidell herein to be believed but in Christ Jewes and Gentiles are all one and a childe as capable of Christian Religion according to his education though his father be an Heathen as if a Christian the reason why the seed of Abraham had a priviledge was the Ordinances were only in his house as many as came to have benefit of the Ordinances were circumcised though not of Abrahams seed they that were bought with money or sojourned in Abrahams house nay though they were reckoned as a family distinct from Abrahams and the males reckoned not as Abrahams males but their own males yet if they desired to eate the Passeover their males must be circumcised Exod. 12.48 Those that joyn themselves to the Ordinances and claim their interest in baptisime and relation in Christ to be his Disciples they must be baptized and their families and as many as they can undertake for to bring to the outward means if they can undertake for whole nations the commissioners may not refuse them they must be suffered to come if any will undertake to bring them though children Now that fathers by undertaking to bring their children to hearing and to learning what is the way of God do no more then their dutie and what they can readily perform and do bring their children to Church and take order for their catechizing which were the parents as carefull as they ought were a great means to promote Religion and Piety among men and is often required in the Scripture from the father That is by this Anabaptisticall tenet laid only upon the Minister which turneth into a great incumbrance and neglect of the instruction of the people whereby many have been enforced to fall into that inexcusable error that all men have the office of a Minister if baptized themselves and have gifts such as the people shall approve of But grant that the nations must be made Disciples before they must be baptized and that all nations must believe before Disciples doth it follow that every party must believe that is baptized quod convenit parti quapars convenit toti gratia istius partis that which agreeth to any part agreeth to the whole by reason of the part but not to every part the whole man seeth with his eye I speak de actu videndi but not with any other member but having gotten the knowledge by the eye the soul implieth other members more imperato to do their office So the Magistrates that are not only the sense but the understanding of the nations believing may be baptized and by the duty of their place require others to be baptized also Non quicquid totius etiam partis est in totis integrantibus a man must see before he go into the river to be washed he seeth with his eye not with his foot but when he is washed his foot may be washed also the nation believeth by the Magistrate by whose authority the whole nation is put to school to Christ and is baptized which is an externall duty and may be required by the Magistrate as for faith we have no Lords of faith here every man must give an account of his faith to the Lord of faith Jesus Christ upon his day In the mean time it is a most insolent arrogancy and contrary to Scripture for any man to judge of anothers faith Saint Paul saith not as having dominion over your faith but as helpers of your joy 2 Cor. 1.24 and Saint Peter not as Lords over the flock if therefore they are not Lords how come they to be Judges what do Lordship consist in a name or in judicature names be but weake and childish apprehensions of things natures only yeeld distinct knowledge Moses could no sooner take upon him to judge of wrong done among brethren but presently they aske Who made him a Prince a Lord a Judge intimating that judgement belongeth to a Lord Wee doe much declaime against Lordship and dominion over other mens consciences and faith yet not only Ministers but every man will take upon him to judge without scruple this man hath faith and that man hath none it is true charity doth permit men privatly to approve but not condemne the faith of another Baptisme is an externall duty such as man can take notice of whether done or not and if a man be called to an account whether he hath baptized such a person or not or whether he went or carried an Infant to be baptized who
be instituted wherein the whole question must be stated what is meant by communion of the Church whether he understand the visible or invisible Church whose office it is to admit and whose to shut out of the Churches communion what be the rites of a visible and what of an invisible Church how can the Infant come and demand the Lords Supper which he distinguisheth from the communion of the Church but how I cannot tell untill they be instructed to know the Lords body to remember the death of Christ and examine themselves which they are commanded to doe and then eat but where is the Minister commanded to give the Sacrament to all that are in the Church or else to turne them out of the Church these things must be proved plainly or else otherwise the argument drawne from hence against childrens baptisme is abignotioribus Christ giveth you a charge to baptize all Nations you say nay we shall then let in ignorant and prophane persons into the Church you will not baptize any untill they be fit to receive the Sacrament you were as good say you will make commissions your selves Christ bids baptize and teach you say there is more in the matter then so you will baptize when you please and whom you please they that will bee baptized must passe your censure and stay your leasure Christ hids you teach and so much examination as is needfull for teaching may be deduced from thence but did God give you in charge to admit and refuse and give you any rules by which ye might walke in the discharge of this duty if so ye might then justly plead this right and make that an argument to remove all that standeth in its way But I wonder extremely at the in temperate zeale of those that plead the duty of admitting and refusing of men ex officio from and to Baptisme and the Lords Supper and herein the Lords Supper is the most cryed up priviledge which you here fall upon whether out of your owne opinion as it seems by some is suspected or to confute your adversaries and make this as a medium to prove that Infants may not be baptized because none may be admitted to the Lords Supper that are wicked though for my part I doe not understand the consequence how baptizing infants and charging their parents to bring them up in the fear of God would be a means to cherish and foster up ignorance and sin But here men cry out against liberty to come to the Lords Supper as if that would pollute the Sacrament and countenance sin as though men might not have liberty to come to the Lords Supper upon their own examination and yet might justly be punished for their sins when they can be proved against them may not men make choice of their owne habitations and drinke when they please and yet be justly punished for adultery and drunkennesse I do not know but the Magistrate may suppresse and punish sin though men may be allowed their liberty to receive Sacraments For my part I wish some stricter course were taken with sin The seventh fault laid to the charge of Infants baptisme is that it perverts the order of discipline that first a man be baptized and after among the catechized but who I pray you Mr. Tombes did lay downe this for an order of Discipline it seems Sacraments are subservient principally to Discipline I had thought the use of Sacraments had been for confirmation of doctrine But let us once heare where this discipline is what footsteps in the doctrine or practice of Christ and his Apostles As for the practice of the Apostles there is nothing found but conversion and baptizing without any interposition of time that of Matth. 3.5 6. there Jerusalem Judea and all the region round about Jordan came to John the Baptist and were baptized of him as like Acts 2. no catechising either of these persons if ever they meant to know Christ must be catechised after their baptisme or not at all I understand not any such duty of catechising if not comprehended in the duty of teaching and doth this seem a thing so strange to you that men should be taught after they are baptized What may not men be taught after they have bargained to be disciples This is all one as if a man should bargain with a School-master that his son should be his scholler and from that day forward the School-master should never teach him but this rather dependeth upon the use of the Ancients then authority of the Word The three last confute themselves as for recrimination I see the Anabaptists so soundly paid with abuses and faults that have been laid to their charges by others that I shall not meddle with them in this point usus per se abusus per accidens The ninth Reason that which causeth unnecessary disputes that cannot be determined by any certain rule that is deservedly doubtfull but the tenet of Infants baptisme is such All these disputes are determined by a certain rule when the commission plainly chargeth the Ministers to baptize all the world so as they can make them disciples if any will undertake to bring them up in the fear of God and instruction of the Gospel or they of yeers do undertake for themselves submission to the Gospel they may be baptized this is the rule of the Word Abraham had not only right to circumcise his own children but he might buy a childe and circumcise it nay if he bought it he must circumcise it But grant that they must be taught first tell me how will Mr. Tombes satisfie the doubts that may arise from hence how much they must learn first how long they must be catechumeni secondly who must judge of their sufficiency thirdly what if any should baptize them before they were fit whether that must be accounted a void act and the party put again among the catechumeni fourthly whether if this accounted valid whether the party that was baptized before he were sufficiently catechized must for ever after remain ignorant together with many other of the like nature which I shall put among my reasons for childrens baptisme The tenth Reason is the same with the first only there he handleth accidens sine subjecto here in subjecto there he saith it was mixed with other errors here that those that held Infants baptisme held other errors therefore I conceive that already answered The eleventh Pedobaptists agree not among themselves when Anabaptists do this may be an Argument not till then and yet answerable that men may sooner agree in evill then good as arising from a more common principle And now I am at last come to his last Reason and that a weighty one saith Mr. Tombes But it is taken only from a seeming effect of Infants baptisme if there be any weight in an Argument from an effect that is ab effectu proximo per se but this doth but seem to take away one end and perhaps the
said Be baptized and wash away thy sinne but wash thy sinne first and then be baptized Act. 15.9 St. Peter sheweth that faith doth purifie the heart Now it is true faith doth receive the Word and Sacraments and maketh one and the other effectuall but both Word and Sacrament doe propose Christ the Word to the eare Sacrament to other senses Baptisme doth represent the bloud of Christ washing and sense doth looke on the washing of water and faith on the promise annexed Now as the word is proposed to the eare so water is tendred and the body washed with water whence faith doth collect the purgation of the soul from the testimony of God water is no more the immediate object of faith then the word it is the authority of God in the word that is the object of faith as likewise the bloud of Christ in baptisme they that beleeve and they that beleeve not heare the word and it is no prophanation of the word to preach it to an Infidell neither is it any prophanation of baptisme to baptize an Infidell yet it is hard to make him heare patiently that in no measure doth beleeve unlesse miracles or in defect of them some assistance of the Civill Magistrate doe concurre so that baptisme is but an offering of the purgation by the bloud of Christ to the eye and the body as the word doth to the eare and may be tendered as the word to all Nations the power of the one and the other is by faith in Christ conveyed unto us in the sacrament of baptisme or the word baptisme cannot worke as baptisme till after administration whatsoever is said of it before is but the operation of the word the washing of water doth sacramentally strengthen our faith no duty of preparation charged on any no man ever reprehended for receiving baptisme unworthily though the Minister hath baptisme charged on him as part of his duty yet never any caution given to Ministers in generall or to Titus or Timothy to take heed that they baptize no unworthy persons nor any sinne or punishment charged on any Minister for baptizing any rashly or without due examination no precept concerning any difference but baptize and teach all Nations to the end that they may become the Disciples of Christ Now where no Law is there is no transgression where God doth not charge sinne how dare any mortall man say this or that is sinfull if any preparation be required let the Scripture bee shewed where that was taught where baptisme was deferred till any competent preparation were manifest what Scripture is directed to the catechumeni nay what one sentence of Scripture is applicable to them that is not applicable to Christians at all times as well after as before baptisme Baptisme is a religious rite which men are easily perswaded out of principles of nature to embrace as may be seen in all Idolatrous worships they have their religious rites which they are perswaded come from the appointment of their gods upon which ground they receive them Now that God did appoint baptisme is no abuse and so we must tender it to Nations by the appointment of Christ which though they receive but as an Infidell doth the word yet when faith commeth they make use of it Therefore the Apostles argue to move newnesse of life from baptisme already received So Romans 6.3.4 5. St. Paul argueth what use wee should make of our baptisme namely that wee should rise with Christ but though the most noble way of arguing be from causes and therefore in the Sacrament of the Lords supper where the worthy receiving of that doth depend on an antecedent cause there faith is said to obtaine the whole vertue of the worke Joh. 6.35 I am the bread he that commeth to me shall never hunger and he that beleeveth on me shall never thirst v. 47. He that beleeveth hath everlasting life 51. Hee that eateth of this bread shall live for ever Whereby he plainly saith That he that beleeveth eateth my flesh this bread which is my flesh sacramentally and made such to me by faith Never any such doctrine as this he that beleeveth is baptized because no doctrine is extant precedent to baptisme in reference to the Gentiles See all the Epistles to the Rom. Corinthians and the residue all are written to Churches already baptized Paul declared the whole counsell of God and yet not one word what should be the carriage of the Catechumeni or the Ministers towards them as if he should suppose none under the right of the Gospell that will not first bee baptized and received by the commandement of Christ so he that will teach any thing in St. Pauls Epistles they must teach them to the baptized to whom they are directed as for the Catechumeni nothing is written or directed either to them or concerning them As for those histories of the Acts the greater part were Jews in Covenant with God already unto whom Peter did indeed preach repentance in reference to that bloud that they were guilty of in killing the Lord of glory not as preparation to baptisme but repentance and baptisme are both exhorted unto as precedent to the gift of the Holy Ghost whereas if such preparation had been needfull to baptisme Peter should have stayed for the gift of the Holy Ghost to manifest their fitnesse or at least given them some directions by which they might manifest their fitnesse or shew their repentance and faith which he never did St. Luke doth indeed say They that gladly received the word were baptized but that they manifested it any way but by receiving baptisme gladly doth not appeare and this was ground enough for an Historian to say they gladly received the word wherein they were exhorted to be baptized when they were gladly baptized As for that story of Cornelius that was indeed a pure Gentile Though Peter had commission enough to have gone to him by the command of Christ Mat. 28.19 and to have baptized him and taught him the commands of Christ yet it is plaine Peter did not understand the Commission therefore God for Peters owne satisfaction and the satisfaction of them of the circumcision was pleased in all that story to goe before Peter in a miraculous way Peter was so farre from baptizing of Cornelius that he was hardly perswaded to goe to him or preach to him but as God did go before him by miracles which when they of the circumcision saw the text saith they were astonished And of this very story St. Peter Act. 15. and other places maketh use of to satisfie the Jewes touching the calling of the Gentiles but this was the mercy of God during the infancie of the Church to use such extraordinary meanes for the drawing off the Jewes from that ceremoniall distinction that God himselfe had put between Jewes and Gentiles but in the orderly administration God sent the Holy Ghost though by extraordinary manifestations yet in a seasonable time when first he had